<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > a few of us, myself included, have consistently pushed > back against this accretion. Sadly, most of the time I, > and I suspect most others, have been unsuccessful.
Without Brian's marauder's map the maze of rules quietly attempting to overrule other rules would be a hopeless mess. That the "real" rules are sometimes unrelated to the published rules, or are only documented in expired drafts and obscure checklists published years ago makes it certainly interesting to get technical drafts right. > Even the IESG is now having trouble keeping all of it > straight. The decision to abandon the ION experiment was strange, a BCP or updating an existing BCP takes far more energy than creating or updating an ION. OTOH a BCP can have real authority for some time, it is supposed to reflect a former IETF consensus and survived an IETF Last Call. > the fact is people have routinely routed around what > they perceive as the damage this restiction causes > simply by posting revisions elsewhere and calling > people's attention to them. Right, if folks have an idea what the purpose of rules is they'll find ways to break them if necessary. OTOH if somebody prepared for a meeting using the "official" draft and asks critical questions, and the editor then tries to weasel out of that with some "editor's copy" posted elsewhere, they might find that jabber and audio can't take snapshots of a middle finger... > worst of all is the inordinate fondness many people > seem to have for all this dreck we've amassed around > ourselves. Maybe, but we often don't agree on what's dreck and what makes sense. After some time in the IPR WG I'm not more 90% sure that "worst" WCP 83 is dreck, let's say I'm at 80% now, just an example. Frank
